Philip K. Dick, Sci-Fi Philosopher, Part 2
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
If you're reading novels, "Martian Time-Slip" is a good first Philip K Dick book. Although I really enjoy many of his books there are several that may put you off reading more if you read them before you have an appreciation for his work. Martian Time-Slip will give you the flavor of Philip K Dick and show you how innovative and interesting he was as a writer. If you don't enjoy that one I think you will probably not enjoy most of his other novels. If you started with "Confessions of a Crap artist" or even the acclaimed "The man in the high castle" for example you might not have the best first experience with his work. "Ubik" (also mentioned in this thread) is another good choice to start with.
He is a very interesting character and a lot of enigma?/controversy surrounds him. This was an interesting conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly_%28film%29#Ca...
[1] Literal in the classic sense, not the contranymical nonsense that has been thrust upon it thanks to teenagers who "can't even"...read a dictionary.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adaptations_of_works_by...
Spoilers...
In Minority Report (film), the protagonist does everything to save one innocent abused by the state. In the book, well, let's just say if you want a perfect society you've got to break a few eggs.
In Paycheck (film), he sides with government regulators to stop a corrupt corporation. In Paycheck (book) he sides with a corrupt corporation to take down the government.
In The Golden Man, the government hunts a powerful and dangerous mutant. In Next, the powerful mutant sides with the government to stop terrorists.
I know Dick wasn't in favor of killing cops or corrupt corporations or hunting down people who are different, but the best thing about all of those stories is that they put the protagonists in these sort of awful lifeboat ethics dilemmas, dilemmas that are apparently far too interesting to waste on film audiences.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007
Looks like you literally can't even read a dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
> 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
It's fun to take illiterate pedants down a peg. Everyone should try it for themselves.
Yes, there is ample evidence that it was used to mean "with emphasis, but not in reality" for some time. I was wrong. I was attempting to make a glib remark without much consideration for facts...next time I'll endeavor to either keep my snide commentary to myself, or at least do a bit of fact checking.
...but in the mean time/back to the parent topic, people really should read Phillip K. Dick. He's a fantastic writer and visionary, and uses language far better than I can.
And yeah, I'm completely in agreement: PKD is amazing.
This is fundamentally incorrect. As far as Judeo-Christian theology is concerned, there is a clear distinction between God and creation.
Incidentally, this is also why Spinoza (a Sephardic Jew and monist) was excommunicated.
This is not, for the most part, what Christians philosophically believe. For example, evil, which is certainly a part of our universe is most definitely not a part of God; God is metaphysicsl whilst the universe is physical; the universe is temporal, God is not; etc.
This is what I mean by there is a "clear distinction" between the two. Monism, by definition, argues that "everything is one".
Furthermore this is getting into some of the areas of theological not philosophical or logical interpretation.
In order for any of what you say to make sense I have to buy the idea of god to begin with which I don't and even if I did it's quite obvious that the attempt to make the distinction isn't grounded in reasoning which is fine since it's religion.
The distinction is grounded in logic, per Spinoza (and later Leibnitz, who was also a monist and wrote the famous Monadology).
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it really sounds like you need to do some serious reading to gain some domain knowledge before jumping in this kind of discussion. You can start by looking at the SEP page: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
I know very well what monism means so don't worry about how much I read on that account.
Of course monism can mean there is only one supreme being if that supreme being is being said to be the creator of the world we exist in. It's just a matter of definition. And again the objection to the quote is the primary center for this discussion and in that context it's not clear exactly what is meant with creation.
Keep in mind that monism doesn't even require an "intellect" (or supreme being, as you refer to it). Instead, it is a theory about the relationship between physical and metaphysical substance(s).
He means that Christianity canonically differentiates a Creator (God) and that which was created (universe, people, etc). So, this person or tree is not God, nor is it an aspect of God.
What I read is the act of _creating_ not _what_is_created_
But I could obviously be wrong.